Re: Golang bundled() Provides generator

Hi Maxwell & Go SIG, we have recently started working on introducing a bundled() provides generator for golang in openSUSE and found a very simple solution using the output of `go version -m /path/to/binary` [1] The solution is of course only that simple, because we build more or less all go

Re: An update on RHEL moving to issues.redhat.com

Ondřej Budai writes: > What about hosted Gitea from gitea.com? > > Gitea is fully open source, very popular in the self-hosting community and > their hosted offering would free up some of our precious infra team > resources. Gitea is ok from a UX perspective but it is still quite lacking from

Re: Macros in side-tag

Hi Vít, Vít Ondruch writes: > Hi, > > Koji has grown new functionality to enable setting macros in side-tag: > > https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11254 > > I have asked FeSCo to approve to use them: > > https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3046 > > My immediate use case is to improve the package

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Enable fwupd-refresh.timer by default on IoT, CoreOS & Server Editions (Self-Contained)

Hi, Aoife Moloney writes: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EnableFwupdRefreshByDefault > *snip* > > == Detailed Description == > > Firmware for hardware devices can have bugs and firmware updates > generally help address those. Firmware updates might however need > manual interaction, a

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Color Bash Prompt (System Wide)

Hi, Aoife Moloney writes: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Color_Bash_Prompt > > == Summary == > Introduce a default colored prompt for Fedora's default shell bash. > > == Owner == > > * Name: [[User:Petersen| Jens Petersen]] > > * Email: > > > == Detailed Description == > For a long

Re: Fedora ELN Plans for Summer 2023

Florian Weimer writes: > * Stephen Gallagher: > >> First, as the cleanup of unnecessary dependencies in the Fedora ELN >> has not yet completed, we are revising our plan of performing a >> mass-import of *all* Fedora ELN content to CentOS Stream 10 in July. >> Instead, we plan to move to a

Re: Modules without modularity

Hi Petře, Petr Pisar writes: > Hello, > > as it seems that module build infrastructure isn't getting any better, as > modular YUM repositories are going to be deconfigured > , > there is a time to look at different ways how

Re: more distinct default bash prompt?

Hi Jens, Jens-Ulrik Petersen writes: > In Fedora the bash prompt is not colored or highlighted by default. > > I personally find this a usability issue: it makes it hard to find previous > commands between long outputs when scrolling back in a terminal. Of course > in my own host I have a

Re: F39 Change Proposal: Flatpaks without Modules (System-Wide Change)

Hi, Aoife Moloney writes: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FlatpaksWithoutModules > snip > > There is considerable implementation complexity within OSBS to implement this, > because the N/V/R need to be written into generated Dockerfile as > labels ''before'' building it, > but it

Re: F39 proposal: mkosi-initrd (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Ben Cotton writes: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/mkosi-initrd > > This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes > process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive > community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved > by the Fedora

Re: F39 proposal: RPM 4.19 (System-Wide Change proposal)

Chris Adams writes: > Once upon a time, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek said: >> On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 11:17:50AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> > Why a subrpm? Should be possible to just arrange for one src.rpm to >> > build the library twice and install the x86-64-v3 into >> >

Re: F39 proposal: RPM 4.19 (System-Wide Change proposal)

Hi, Mattia Verga via devel writes: > Il 31/03/23 17:27, Florian Festi ha scritto: >> On 3/31/23 15:40, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 3:42 PM Ben Cotton wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RPM-4.19 == Detailed Description == RPM 4.19 contains

Re: Specfile - Upgrade - Check if the old and the new package versions are the same

Hi Simon, On March 30, 2023 12:54:49 AM UTC, Simon Pichugin wrote: >Hi folks, >I've spent some time experimenting and trying to implement something like >this ($subject): > >During `%preun servers`: > >export OLD_VERSION="$(rpm -qa openldap | awk -F- '/^openldap/ && >split($2,ver,/\./) >= 1

Re: RFC: No koji builds during mass branching and updates-testing enablement

Hi Fabio, On March 9, 2023 1:37:14 PM UTC, Fabio Valentini wrote: >Hi all, > >As a follow-up from a recent discussion on Matrix/IRC, I'm proposing >the following change to the development cycle / release schedule: > >"Koji builds are blocked while mass branching and updates-testing >enablement

Re: Hoping to disable i686 and 32-bit arm for Podman and related tools for existing Fedora releases

Hi Lokesh, Lokesh Mandvekar writes: > Hi, > > We (podman upstream and fedora maintainers) are hoping to disable i686 > and 32-bit arm builds for Podman and some related tools under > https://github.com/containers org. We would like to do this also for > released Fedora versions, and not just

Re: F38 proposal: IoT Simplified Installer (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Hi Peter, Peter Robinson writes: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 11:20 AM Dan Čermák > wrote: >> >> Ben Cotton writes: >> >> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/IoTSimplifiedInstaller >> > >> > This document represents a proposed Cha

Re: F38 proposal: IoT Simplified Installer (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Ben Cotton writes: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/IoTSimplifiedInstaller > > This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes > process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive > community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved > by

Re: Use cases for 'fedpkg scratch-build'

Otto Liljalaakso writes: > Hello everybody, > > I would like to gather different use cases for the 'fedpkg > scratch-build' command. > > Currently, this is exactly the same as 'fedpkg build --scratch', meaning > that is performs a scratch build of the pushed head of the current > branch. At

Re: Macro expanded on comment?

Ron Olson writes: > Hey all- > > I commented out a SOURCES line in a spec file to test something and got an > interesting warning: “Macro expanded in comment on line …”. I assume it’s > just that, a warning, but was kinda surprised to see a commented-out line > being evaluated at all. I did

Re: F38 proposal: Add Fedora Auto Firstboot Services to desktop variants (System-Wide Change proposal)

Hi, On November 23, 2022 8:08:59 PM UTC, Ben Cotton wrote: >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/AutoFirstBootServices > >This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes >process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive >community feedback. This proposal will

Re: Orphaned a lot of (mostly) Go packages owned by @fpokorny

Hi Daniel, On November 23, 2022 5:44:01 PM UTC, "Daniel P. Berrangé" wrote: >On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 01:20:24PM +0100, Ralf Corsépius wrote: >> >> >> Am 23.11.22 um 12:20 schrieb Miro Hrončok: >> > Hello. >> > >> > Based on my conversation with Fridolín Pokorný @fpokorny, I've removed >> >

Re: moby-engine (also known as Docker) maintenance in Fedora

Hi Timothée, On November 14, 2022 7:18:45 PM UTC, "Timothée Ravier" wrote: >Hi everyone, > >The moby-engine package [1] (also known as Docker) has been orphaned in Fedora >and is looking for a new maintainer. The waiting period will soon be over and >the package will be retired if nobody

Re: [side tags] Undesired automatic side-tag removal happened - how to deal with it in the future?

Hi, On October 10, 2022 8:17:15 AM UTC, Zdenek Dohnal wrote: >Hi all, > >I maintain qpdf in Fedora, which recently got a new major release version, >which breaks compatibility with other packages, so I created a side tag for >other maintainers to use for building, and then releasing it

Re: [INPUT REQUESTED] Re: F38 proposal: Node.js Repackaging (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Hi Stephen, Stephen Gallagher writes: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 2:29 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > *snip* > When a Node.js release goes out of support, we have a question to > answer: do we Obsolete it with a newer version? If so, which one? The > most recent version or the oldest one? It will not

Re: limiting the (systemd) journal size

Hi, On September 27, 2022 6:13:48 PM UTC, Chris Murphy wrote: > > >On Tue, Sep 27, 2022, at 10:59 AM, Gregory Bartholomew wrote: >>> >>> What about modifying /etc/systemd/journald.conf: >>> >>> MaxFileSec=1week >>> MaxRetentionSec=5week >>> >>> This should result in at least 4 weeks of

Re: Request for help: Package downgrades on upgrade from F36 to F37

Fabio Valentini writes: > - obs-build-0:20220812-393.9.1.fc36 > obs-build-0:20211125-376.1.3.fc37 Whoops, my bad… Build is running right now. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: Inactive packagers to be removed after the F37 release

Hi, On September 16, 2022 5:03:03 PM UTC, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 10:03:35AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> Isn't peer review much better and easier solution over all? We could also >> require signed commits I guess. > >I think it would slow things down quite a lot to require

Re: rpm with sequoia pgp

Hi Neal, "Neal H. Walfield" writes: > Hi all, > > rpm 4.18 is on the horizon and includes a new OpenPGP backend based on > Sequoia PGP. > > https://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.18.0 > https://sequoia-pgp.org/ > > Thanks to Fabio Valentini (decathorpe) for packaging not only > rpm-sequoia, but

Re: Heads-up / for discussion: dnf not working with 1G of RAM or less

Casey Jao via devel writes: > Old rpm-ostree thread about this: > https://github.com/coreos/rpm-ostree/issues/1127 > > 1. Debian provides a comparably sized package catalog using one-tenth the > size of Fedora's metadata. Are there any lessons that Fedora can learn from > Debian? > 2. Does

Re: [fedora-arm] Heads-up / for discussion: dnf not working with 1G of RAM or less

Hi, Adam Williamson writes: > Hey folks! I apologize for the wide distribution, but this seemed like > a bug it'd be appropriate to get a wide range of input on. > > There's a bug that was proposed as an F37 Beta blocker: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907030 > > it's quite an

Re: How text files / documentation affect package licensing

On August 10, 2022 7:18:35 PM UTC, Jerry James wrote: >On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 12:52 PM Dan Čermák > wrote: >> I think that there's another pitfall here: if you e.g. build a HTML >> documentation, then you should (?) include the license of all the bundled >> fonts, CS

Re: dnf makecache memory usage increase

Stephen Smoogen writes: > On Mon, 1 Aug 2022 at 07:45, Dusty Mabe wrote: > >> >> >> On 7/29/22 12:05, Peter Robinson wrote: >> >> Looks like dnf makecache is uses a lot more memory, causing issues on >> >> smaller systems/containers. >> >> >> >> F34: >> >> >> >> Metadata cache created. >> >>

Re: F37 proposal: Emacs 28 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

David Malcolm writes: > On Mon, 2022-07-18 at 13:29 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Emacs_28 >> >> This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes >> process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive >> community feedback. This

Re: Retiring the pcre package from Fedora

Hi, Lukas Javorsky writes: > i3 > i3-gaps there is a patch to make i3 (and thus i3-gaps) compatible with pcre2 [1], which has been merged upstream. I can cherry pick it and rebuild i3 in Rawhide without requiring pcre, if this is urgent. Otherwise I'd rather wait for the next upstream release.

Re: F37 proposal: Emacs 28 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Hi Kevin and all, "Kevin P. Fleming" writes: > On 7/20/22 14:57, Marcus Müller wrote: >> Oh! That comes as a surprise. Let me try a rebuild! >> >> :( I was really looking forward to emacs-pgtk. >> > Forgive my relative newbie-ness here, but this proposal is to upgrade > Emacs to version 28 in

Re: F37 proposal: SELinux Parallel Autorelabel (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On July 15, 2022 9:42:35 PM UTC, Ben Cotton wrote: >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SELinux_Parallel_Autorelabel > >This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes >process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive >community feedback. This proposal will

Re: F37 proposal: Public release of the Anaconda Web UI preview image (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Hi, On July 15, 2022 9:30:48 PM UTC, Ben Cotton wrote: >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Anaconda_Web_UI_preview_image > >This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes >process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive >community feedback. This proposal

Re: proposal idea: EOL notifications

Hi, On July 6, 2022 3:44:49 PM UTC, "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek" wrote: >Hi, > >In https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2803 Artem asked for a user-visible >notification when a Fedora stops being supported. Various proposals >for online checks were discussed in the bug, but I think we might make >do

Re: F37 proposal: Add -fno-omit-frame-pointer to default compilation flags (System-Wide Change proposal)

Kevin Kofler via devel writes: > Fabio Valentini wrote: >> And if we say this argument is valid, then should we also build all our >> packages with ASAN / TSAN / etc. instrumentation, as well? > > And ASAN would actually have tangible benefits for end users, namely > preventing some memory bug

Re: F37 proposal: Add -fno-omit-frame-pointer to default compilation flags (System-Wide Change proposal)

On July 4, 2022 2:54:11 PM UTC, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: >Daan De Meyer via devel wrote: >> As mentioned in the change proposal, when using sampling profilers that >> rely on fast access to the stacktrace, there is currently no viable >> alternative to frame pointers. DWARF unwinding in

Re: F37 proposal: Add -fno-omit-frame-pointer to default compilation flags (System-Wide Change proposal)

Hi, On June 16, 2022 8:53:59 PM UTC, Ben Cotton wrote: >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/fno-omit-frame-pointer > >This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes >process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive >community feedback. This proposal will only

Re: Plan / proposal: enable openQA update testing and potentially gating on Rawhide updates

Sounds like a great addition Adam! Just to double check: if you have not enabled gating, then openQA will not be run at all? Cheers, Dan On June 9, 2022 7:48:29 PM UTC, Adam Williamson wrote: >Hi folks! > >We've had openQA testing of updates for stable and branched releases, >and gating

Re: News from printing world aka PWG May 2022 meetup

Hi Petře, Petr Menšík writes: > Thank you for that COPR repository. > > I think using SNAPs on Fedora is wrong. I don't like what snaps do with > mounted filesystems and consider flatpak more appropriate replacement. > But flatpak wants to isolate application from the system. Those apps >

Re: F38 Proposal: SPDX License Phase 1 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Maxwell G via devel writes: > On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 10:06:44 AM CDT Miroslav Suchý wrote: >> > Do we need to %if-%else it in the spec file? I recall some discussion >> > about this on the legal list, but I see no >> > guidelines proposed here. >> >> If you maintain one spec for all

Re: F37 Proposal: Strong crypto settings: phase 3, forewarning 1/2 (System-Wide Change proposal)

Hi David, David Woodhouse writes: > On Fri, 2022-04-29 at 17:49 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: >> This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes >> process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive >> community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if

Re: FESCo wants to know what you use i686 packages for

Felix Schwarz writes: > I use wine and lutris (+ 32bit mingw packages). Yes, same here ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:

[EPEL-devel] Re: RHEL moving to issues.redhat.com only long term

Hi Adam, Adam Williamson writes: > snip > That could obviously have pretty significant consequences for Fedora. > Bugzilla isn't only an issue tracker for Fedora; we run some > significant processes through it, notably the Change process, the > blocker/FE bug process, and the prioritized bug

Re: RHEL moving to issues.redhat.com only long term

Hi Adam, Adam Williamson writes: > snip > That could obviously have pretty significant consequences for Fedora. > Bugzilla isn't only an issue tracker for Fedora; we run some > significant processes through it, notably the Change process, the > blocker/FE bug process, and the prioritized bug

Re: VERY late notification emails

On March 5, 2022 9:03:54 AM UTC, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: >On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 5:25 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > >> No, there's things we can do and are trying to do. ;) > >I seem to remember that one of the issues >identified was (for those of us using gmail >for the notifications) was that

Re: Need advice on NET_ADMIN capability on a binary (iotop-c)

Hi Boian, On February 20, 2022 12:49:53 AM UTC, Boian Bonev wrote: >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >Hash: SHA512 > >Hello, > >I have got a pull request [1] that implements installing iotop-c with the >NET_ADMIN capability by default and I am trying to evaluate if that is OK or >not. >

Re: IMA signing notes and code

Hi Ken, On February 14, 2022 5:10:41 PM UTC, Ken Dreyer wrote: >Hi folks, > >I've been researching IMA signing with RPM. This is a new feature in >CentOS 9 that has not been enabled in Fedora > >I'm not an IMA expert, and I don't work on this for Red Hat, I'm just >an interested user. (In

Re: Do we have any policy for disabling inactive users

Mattia Verga via devel writes: > Il 11/02/22 07:54, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ha scritto: >> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 11:05:03PM +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 9:58 PM Ben Cotton wrote: >>> I have concerns with this approach. I would guess there's a long tail

Re: Do we have any policy for disabling inactive users

Mattia Verga via devel writes: > Just being paranoid here: do we have any policy / automatism for > disabling "power" users (in packager group or like) which have been > inactive for long time? > > I'm no security expert, but an inactive user account may be hacked > without noticing and if such

Re: Non-responsive maintainer for nim/jetbrains-mono-fonts package

On February 3, 2022 6:28:33 PM UTC, Michael Kuhn wrote: >Hi, > >jetbrains-mono-fonts is scheduled for retirement due to not building >since Fedora 33. I have opened a PR some time ago, fixing this problem: >https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jetbrains-mono-fonts/pull-request/2 >However, the

Re: RFE: CMake AutoRequires?

Hi Kevin, On January 27, 2022 3:59:04 AM UTC, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: >Hi, > >when working on finally fixing Trojitá to build (it had been FTBFS since >F34, so removal was impending), I have noticed that the Akonadi contacts >plugin was not getting built because of missing transitive

Re: Self Introduction: Matthew Davis

Welcome to the community Matthew! Great to see so many new people join and especially willing to contribute to epel! Hope you're going to have a great time :-) Cheers, Dan On January 27, 2022 1:31:37 AM UTC, Matthew Davis wrote: >Greetings, > >I am Matthew. I am a DevOps lead engineer for

Re: What to do with packages that fail to install since Fedora 34 but BZs are ASSIGNED?

Hi Miro, Miro Hrončok writes: > On 25. 01. 22 15:48, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 6:43 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> during the Fedora 34 development cycle a year ago, I've reported the >>> following >>> buzgillas about packages that don't install: >>>

Re: [Discussion] Future of the CLI APP packaging

Hi, Jiri Konecny writes: > Dne 07. 01. 22 v 21:54 Major Hayden napsal(a): >> On 1/7/22 14:46, Jiri Konecny wrote: >>> I would like to do here a bit of brainstorming and ask if there is an >>> existing solution to this problem. To explain my problem, >>> recently I found more and more apps

Re: Clean EVR upgrade between releases no more required?

Hi Mattia, Mattia Verga via devel writes: > In this [1] rpmautospec bug it is claimed that a clean EVR upgrade > between Fedora releases is no more required. Afaik this should be correct, as dnf system-upgrade uses distro-sync nowadays and will perform the upgrade correctly even if that

Re: Does anybody still use `starship'?

Otto Urpelainen writes: > Igor Raits kirjoitti 9.1.2022 klo 13.24: >> Hello, >> >> I'm interested to hear if there are any users of the `starship' >> application here in Fedora that consume it from the repositories. >> Please speak up if you do! > > I use it, too. Same here and very thankful

Re: How do we announce new packages?

Kevin Fenzi writes: > On Sat, Jan 01, 2022 at 12:23:49PM +0100, Dan Čermák wrote: >> Fabio Valentini writes: >> >> > On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 9:09 PM Matthew Miller >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 25, 2021 at 09:15:38PM +0100,

Re: How do we announce new packages?

Fabio Valentini writes: > On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 9:09 PM Matthew Miller > wrote: >> >> On Sat, Dec 25, 2021 at 09:15:38PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: >> > So ... maybe we could have a mailing list for this? >> > >> > Maybe "awesome-announce" or "the-new-shinyness" (I'm kidding! I'm bad >> >

Re: F36 Change: Hunspell Dictionary dir change (System-Wide Change proposal)

Elliott Sales de Andrade writes: > On Wed, 29 Dec 2021 at 10:02, Ben Cotton wrote: >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Hunspell_dictionary_dir_change >> >> == Summary == >> Update Hunspell Dictionary system directory from /usr/share/myspell/ >> to /usr/share/hunspell/ >> >> == Owner ==

Re: Package wishlist site?

Hi Jakube, Jakub Kadlčík writes: > Hello, > > TL;DR What about a place where people could ask for something to be > packaged in Fedora? As others already commented: I don't think that this is a good idea. Packaging a program for others where you have no real personal interest/benefit/buy-in

Re: F36 Change: DIGLIM (System-Wide Change proposal)

Ben Cotton writes: *snip* > > It will also make Fedora able to detect tampering of its components at > a more privileged level, the kernel, without the interference of user > space programs. Once tampering has been detected, the actions of the > altered component are prevented before that

Re: openQA tests in Pull Requests?

Hi, Adam Williamson writes: > On Tue, 2021-12-07 at 13:21 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: >> Hello QA, >> >> is there a way (even a hacky one) to run openQA tests (the ones that run on >> Bodhi updates of critpath packages) on an open Pull Request? > > Hey Miro! Right now there really isn't, I'm

Re: Review request for oclock package (orphaned since F35)

Hi, Globe Trotter via devel writes: > Thank you to Dan Čermák for reviewing this package. However, I had two > questions from his comments. The first was that the spec file should use > gpgverify. > So, I went to the suggested webpage: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/

Re: F37 Change: RetireARMv7 (System-Wide Change proposal)

Hi, just a minor suggestion: On November 15, 2021 7:15:49 PM UTC, Ben Cotton wrote: > >Overall arm32 is generally waning with generally few new ARMv7 devices >added to Fedora in recent releases. Remove one of the two generally/general. >== Contingency Plan == > >Continue on as before with

Re: Fedora CoreOS streams rebasing to Fedora Linux 35

Hi Dusty, Dusty Mabe writes: > - cgroups v2 is now the default [5] > - 64-bit ARM (aarch64) artifacts are now available [8] > - Raspberry Pi 4 install documentation is now available [9] > - Switching to iptables-nft by default [14] What a list! Thanks for all your work on these features that

Re: Fedora minimum hardware requirements

Nico Kadel-Garcia writes: > On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 3:36 PM Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 16, 2021, 10:01 PM Kevin Kofler via devel >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I still remember how Red Hat Linux and (IIRC) Fedora Core 1 could be booted >>> from a floppy (older Red Hat Linux

Re: bodhi updates skipping updates-testing entirely

Hi Fabio, Fabio Valentini writes: > So, I wonder, should updates always be allowed to skip being in the > "updates-testing" repository entirely? There's probably good reasons > for it sometimes (for example, time-critical security updates, i.e. > firefox, kernel, etc.), but in the general case,

Re: final link failed: memory exhausted on armv7l

Hi Iñaki, Iñaki Ucar writes: > Hi, > > RStudio is failing consistently on armv7l on F35 [1, 2] and rawhide > [3, 4] with this message (memory exhausted). The same build on the > same machine (CPU and RAM) succeeds on F34 [5]. Any clue what's going > on? Why rawhide and F35 and not F34? Anything

Re: Onboarding package

Vitaly Zaitsev via devel writes: > On 05/10/2021 18:04, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> So we need a real proposal with an end to end idea of what >> is being done, what is to be learned, and how it is to be 'watched' by >> real developers to make sure people are learning things. > > Maybe we can

Re: Onboarding package

Kevin Fenzi writes: > Another possible way we could do this is have this setup in our staging > env. ie, they do the same things, but it's in staging (which we never > compose anyhow). That has the danger of something being broken in stg > without us realizing it, or them diverging. +1 on

Re: F36 Change: Retired Packages (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Vitaly Zaitsev via devel writes: > On 07/10/2021 17:45, Ben Cotton wrote: >> Subpackage `remove-retired-packages` has been created (subpackage of >> `fedora-upgrade`). > > I suggest integrating this functionality into dnf as a plugin. > > Example: > sudo dnf clean-retired --releasever=32 This

Re: Fedora  Java: The Death of Two SIGs

Neal Gompa writes: >> >> On that topic, I've just read an interview of Nicolas Lécureuil, the >> president of the Mageia board, in which he says that Mageia's Java stack >> is based on Fedora's and that he interacts with Fedora's Java team >> (leading me to wonder who exactly he is interacting

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F34 to F35

Miroslav Suchý writes: > Do you want to make Fedora 35 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and > try to run: > > # Run this only if you use default Fedora modules > # next time you run any DNF command default modules will be enabled again > sudo dnf module reset '*' > > sudo dnf

Re: Running ldconfig after the RPM transaction

Hi Florian, Florian Weimer writes: > * Dan Čermák: > >> it has been recently proposed to switch openSUSE to run ldconfig via a >> %transfiletriggerin/-un scriptlet instead of manually in %post & %postun >> the same way as Fedora does it at the moment. >> &g

Running ldconfig after the RPM transaction

Hi list, it has been recently proposed to switch openSUSE to run ldconfig via a %transfiletriggerin/-un scriptlet instead of manually in %post & %postun the same way as Fedora does it at the moment. However, an interesting issue has been raised: what happens if package A gets upgraded in the

Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2021-08-23)

Unfortunately we had technical difficulties with zodbot, so these are my manually taken minutes: #2659 Arbitration request: Crypto policy prevents VPN connections https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2659 is considered resolved #2661 Add fedora-third-party-refresh.service to 90-default.preset for

Schedule for Monday's FESCo Meeting (2021-08-23)

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting Monday at 19:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.libera.chat. To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto or run: date -d '2021-08-23 19:00 UTC' Links to all issues to be

Re: The Death of Java (packages)

I'd also like to plug Jakub's new sponsor page: https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-sponsors/all There you can find all currently active sponsors by language, interest, etc. Cheers, Dan On August 12, 2021 7:29:10 AM UTC, Felix Schwarz wrote: >Hi Stephen, > >thank you for your interest in

Re: Help with gdal sphinx doc build failure

Orion Poplawski writes: > On 8/11/21 2:24 PM, Dan Čermák wrote: >> Hi Orion, >> >> Orion Poplawski writes: >> >>> I've reported: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1992426 >>> > >>> This appears to be due to breathe not hand

Re: Help with gdal sphinx doc build failure

Hi Orion, Orion Poplawski writes: > I've reported: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1992426 > > gdal docs are failing to build with: > > > > Exception occurred: > >File "/usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/sphinx/util/cfamily.py", line > 275, in fail > > raise

Re: Use of sed in spec files

Hi Richard, Richard Shaw writes: > It's quite common to need to do some minor manipulation in a spec file and > you decide to use sed instead of patching so you don't have to update it > every release. > > The problem is that sed returns 0 whether it actually did anything or not. > > Thinking

Re: guile22 -> gnutls -> lots of virt packages

On July 7, 2021 9:14:34 PM UTC, "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek" wrote: >On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 06:21:08PM +0200, Petr Menšík wrote: >> What would be considered sufficient research about usage of guile? If >> package provides it as optional feature among many other features, >how >> should

Re: rpmautospec deployment into production

Otto Urpelainen writes: > Dan Čermák kirjoitti 18.7.2021 klo 23.38: >> Otto Urpelainen writes: >> >>> Dan Čermák kirjoitti 17.7.2021 klo 23.10: >>>> Robert-André Mauchin writes: >>>> >>>>> What is the situation wrt new packages

Re: rpmautospec deployment into production

Otto Urpelainen writes: > Dan Čermák kirjoitti 17.7.2021 klo 23.10: >> Robert-André Mauchin writes: >> >>> What is the situation wrt new packages? Should we enforce the use of >>> rpmautospec during reviews or is it completely optional? >> &

Re: rpmautospec deployment into production

Robert-André Mauchin writes: *snip* > What is the situation wrt new packages? Should we enforce the use of > rpmautospec during reviews or is it completely optional? I think we should encourage the usage of rpmautospec for new packages, provided that the packager feels comfortable enough to

Re: Permanent Updates Policy exception for PrusaSlicer, Cura, Black, tox, HTTPie and ownCloud Desktop Client

Otto Urpelainen writes: *snip* > > I wonder if Updates Policy should have general wording that would allow > you to update this package without asking for exceptions, or at least > "make it more likely to grant a request"? It does not make much sense to > disallow client program updates

Re: Schedule for Monday's FESCo Meeting (2021-07-12)

Hi folks, I'll probably not make it to today's meeting. Sorry for the late notice, Dan On July 12, 2021 11:20:13 AM UTC, "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek" wrote: >Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the >FESCo meeting Monday at 19:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on

Re: F35 Change: Memory Constraints macros for RPM (System-Wide Change proposal)

Thanks a lot for this Michel! Ben Cotton writes: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MemoryConstraintsMacros > > == Summary == > Introduce macros, similar to openSUSE's > [https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/openSUSE:Factory/memory-constraints > memory-constraints]), for optionally

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Macro to smoke-test-import a Python module in %check

Miro Hrončok writes: > On 28. 06. 21 22:25, Dan Čermák wrote: >> Hi Miro, >> >> Miro Hrončok writes: >> >>> Hello Python RPM packagers, >>> >>> based on some discussion in the "F35 Change: Python Packaging Guidelines >>> over

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Macro to smoke-test-import a Python module in %check

Hi Miro, Miro Hrončok writes: > Hello Python RPM packagers, > > based on some discussion in the "F35 Change: Python Packaging Guidelines > overhaul (System-Wide Change proposal)" thread [0], I've drafted a macro that > can help to test-import a Python module in %check when no other tests

Re: RFC: Banning bots from submitting automated koji builds

On June 22, 2021 1:26:30 PM UTC, "Miroslav Suchý" wrote: >Dne 20. 06. 21 v 10:42 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): >> Rather than "no bots allowed" policy, we might need a "bots that >violate our policies and guidelines or have a >> tendency to break things will be disabled until fixed" policy. >

Re: Fedora Source-git SIG report #1 (June 2021)

On June 24, 2021 6:08:17 PM UTC, "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek" wrote: >On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 03:48:54PM +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:41 PM Miro Hrončok >wrote: >> > >> > On 24. 06. 21 11:16, Tomas Tomecek wrote: >> > > ## Choosing git forge to host source-git

Re: Fedora Source-git SIG report #1 (June 2021)

On June 24, 2021 9:22:51 PM UTC, "Miro Hrončok" wrote: >On 24. 06. 21 23:07, Miroslav Suchý wrote: >> Dne 24. 06. 21 v 15:48 Tomas Tomecek napsal(a): One thing to consider is that the upstream tarballs might be >cryptographically signed and packages should verify the signature in

Re: x86_64-v2 in Fedora

On June 17, 2021 12:08:44 AM UTC, Neal Gompa wrote: >On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 6:08 PM Kevin Kofler via devel > wrote: >> >> Neal Gompa wrote: >> > Yeah, I think that proposal was not workable because of AVX2. The >> > x86_64-v2 subarch adds SSSE3, SSE4.2, POPCNT, and CMPXCHG16B to the >> >

Re: F35 Change: Python Packaging Guidelines overhaul (System-Wide Change proposal)

Petr Viktorin writes: > On 14. 06. 21 17:52, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: >> On 14.06.2021 15:32, Ben Cotton wrote: >>> Running upstream tests is mandatory. >> >> What about tests that require network access? > > > Thanks for this and all the other concerns about mandatory tests! > I updated

Re: F35 Change: Python Packaging Guidelines overhaul (System-Wide Change proposal)

Miro Hrončok writes: > On 14. 06. 21 19:35, Benjamin Beasley wrote: >> I’m still in favor of running every test that is even vaguely practical in >> %check, but upstream Python packaging practices are wildly diverse >> (arguably, a mess) and it seems like a strongly worded SHOULD with a >>

  1   2   3   >